Get the Lead out -- time to stop dragging our feet

DaleB said:
We feed ours ethanol-free MOGAS exclusively. The lack of lead means our oil change interval is 4 times longer than if we were running 100% AVGAS, and the gearbox won’t have as many problems.

Yes, it’s a Rotax, so nobody cares, but yes, we do haul MOGAS from the gas station in 5 gallon cans specifically for the health of the engine, and would do so even if it cost the same as 100LL.

The ethanol thing is just preference; the engine and fuel system are both designed to handle 10% corn squeezin’s. I personally don’t want to divert any more of that away from bourbon production than I need to.
Click to expand...

I've heard that the ethanol absorbs water... is that something you worry about / consider?
 
db_pooper said:
I've heard that the ethanol absorbs water... is that something you worry about / consider?
Click to expand...
It does. But I don't worry about it given that I have been using E-10 for decades in cars and airplanes without a problem.

Note: If you occasionally find water in your sumps because you are tied down with leaky gas caps, then, NFW would you want to use E-10. But you would also probably want to fix the airplane.
 
Half Fast said:
Let’s implement the proven solution, get G100UL to market, buy the bloody STC, and move on. Preferably before the EPA and enviro-whackos ground us.
Click to expand...
Sounds great. Why doesn't GAMI do that?
 
Half Fast said:
See post #171.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that. But even if post #171 accurately reflected the legislation, there’s nothing to keep GAMI from loading a truck and selling fuel at oh, I don’t know…..say, Ada, Oklahoma.

Swift is probably an inferior fuel, yet you can buy it at over 30 airports. Why can’t GAMI do the same?
 
OneCharlieTango said:
You keep saying that.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I said it once. Others have also told you to go read it.


OneCharlieTango said:
Swift is probably an inferior fuel, yet you can buy it at over 30 airports. Why can’t GAMI do the same?
Click to expand...

Swift is a fuel producer. GAMI is not.

I understand other producers wanting to develop their own fuel rather than licensing GAMI's, but what ticks me off is that we're spending tax dollars for them to play at it. Let Phillips, Chevron, VP, etc., spend their own money. If they weren't sucking off the USG teat, GAMI's licensing fee might look more attractive.
 
I don’t disagree about the government expenditures. I wonder, though, if it doesn’t buy us some time with the environmentalist wackos. They generally see the government as a solver of problems, and here’s the government, apparently working to solve their problem.

The behind-the-scenes stuff is probably complicated, ugly, corrupt, etc.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I wonder, though, if it doesn’t buy us some time with the environmentalist wackos.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, our engines are wrecking themselves with 4X the amount of TEL they were designed for. The enviro concerns about lead in avgas are largely bull, but the damage the lead does to airplane engines is real.
 
Half Fast said:
Swift is a fuel producer. GAMI is not.
Click to expand...
Good point. I imagine that becoming a fuel producer would involve a pretty hefty capital investment, not to mention the likelihood that it would require finding and hiring types of expertise that fuel designers wouldn't necessarily have.
 
Government doesnt need to pay for the STCs. FAA just needs to say, no STC required. Buy it if you want to REALLY support GAMI, and if not, don't.
 
Half Fast said:
Meanwhile, our engines are wrecking themselves with 4X the amount of TEL they were designed for. The enviro concerns about lead in avgas are largely bull, but the damage the lead does to airplane engines is real.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the 40+ year OH time has really ruined the 0540 in the Comanche
 
Palmpilot said:
Good point. I imagine that becoming a fuel producer would involve a pretty hefty capital investment, not to mention the likelihood that it would require finding and hiring types of expertise that fuel designers wouldn't necessarily have.
Click to expand...
And yet Swift, which started as a Purdue University-affiliated chemistry research concern, has managed to do exactly that.
 
EdFred said:
Government doesnt need to pay for the STCs. FAA just needs to say, no STC required. Buy it if you want to REALLY support GAMI, and if not, don't.
Click to expand...


I don't know the reasons, but somehow FAA legal hasn't been able to figure out a way to do that. Apparently it's more complicated than it seems. Most bureaucratic ca-ca is.

BUT, if they had any motivation to do it, I suspect the EAGLE fuel producers could pool resources and negotiate purchase of the STC from GAMI. Give it away "free" (Hah!) to make it back at the pump, and just bake the cost into the price per gallon. If they hold to the same pricing as GAMI, I suspect they wouldn't have to add very much to the fuel price depending on how quickly they'd need to recoup the investment.

I'm sure there are several ways to get UL to the market. As things stand, though, the fuel companies have no business motivation to do anything other than cash EAGLE checks and cook up soda pop in their labs. They're happy with the status quo and therefore will try to maintain it as long as possible.
 
EdFred said:
Government doesnt need to pay for the STCs. FAA just needs to say, no STC required.
Click to expand...

Does the FAA have the statutory authority to make that determination?

EdFred said:
Buy it if you want to REALLY support GAMI, and if not, don't.
Click to expand...

As a renter, I don't have that option, but in any case, how do you get enough people to buy the STC to solve the problem?

By the way, the motivation for my suggestion was not to help GAMI; I just think it would be wrong for the government to steal their intellectual property.
 
Palmpilot said:
Does the FAA have the statutory authority to make that determination?
Click to expand...


Apparently not. But there might be other ways to skin it.

For example, Swift's UL94 supposedly requires an STC, but Textron published a service bulletin, SEB-28-04, that approves the use of UL94 in many Cessna and Beechcraft airplanes. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...cessna-models-can-now-burn-reduced-lead-avgas

You can implement the service bulletin (basically just installing a fuel placard and getting an A&P signature in the logbook) and use UL94 without the Swift STC.

Could something similar be done for GAMI gas? Could the FAA do something other than an STC? Beats me, but maybe.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
And yet Swift, which started as a Purdue University-affiliated chemistry research concern, has managed to do exactly that.
Click to expand...
Swift has been producing UL94 for eight years, but it's still only available at a small number of airports, and not in every state. Are you sure that this is the example you want to hold up for GAMI to follow.?

https://www.avfuel.com/Fuel/Alternative-Fuels/UL94-Swift

"UL94 has been produced by Swift Fuels at their Indiana fuel facility since 2015."​
​
http://flyunleaded.com/airports.html

I see less than three dozen airports on that list nationwide. (That list is from last year. Has anyone seen a more recent list?)
 
Palmpilot said:
Swift has been producing UL94 for eight years, but it's still only available at a small number of airports, and not in every state. Are you sure that this is the example you want to hold up for GAMI to follow.?

https://www.avfuel.com/Fuel/Alternative-Fuels/UL94-Swift

"UL94 has been produced by Swift Fuels at their Indiana fuel facility since 2015."​
​
http://flyunleaded.com/airports.html

I see less than three dozen airports on that list nationwide. (That list is from last year. Has anyone seen a more recent list?)
Click to expand...
www.google.com

Unleaded UL94 Avgas Availability - Google My Maps

Retail Locations (Blue Teardrop) Private Users (Purple Diamond) Events (Red Teardrop) Universities (Gold Teardrop)
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Palmpilot said:
Does the FAA have the statutory authority to make that determination?



As a renter, I don't have that option, but in any case, how do you get enough people to buy the STC to solve the problem?

By the way, the motivation for my suggestion was not to help GAMI; I just think it would be wrong for the government to steal their intellectual property.
Click to expand...
I don't see why not. They have the authority to approve/issue the STC. Not sure why they can't say, "not needed, owner or a&p can make a logbook entry and call it good."

But simple and government generally don't emulsify.
 
Palmpilot said:
Swift has been producing UL94 for eight years, but it's still only available at a small number of airports, and not in every state. Are you sure that this is the example you want to hold up for GAMI to follow.?

https://www.avfuel.com/Fuel/Alternative-Fuels/UL94-Swift

"UL94 has been produced by Swift Fuels at their Indiana fuel facility since 2015."​
​
http://flyunleaded.com/airports.html

I see less than three dozen airports on that list nationwide. (That list is from last year. Has anyone seen a more recent list?)
Click to expand...
Swift is available at 30-some airports. G100UL isn’t available anywhere.

Why isn’t it? Every possible excuse I’ve heard so far is nullified by the availability of 94UL.

So why is it impossible to buy G100UL?
 
db_pooper said:
I've heard that the ethanol absorbs water... is that something you worry about / consider?
Click to expand...
Consider, yes. Worry about, no. In the 7-8 years I’ve owned this plane I’ve sumped water exactly once, and that was after an Oshkosh rainstorm.

We’ve been burning E10 in our cars and lawn stuff for decades too. Exactly zero issues with water or any of the other horror stories.

Racerx said:
It also degrades rubber.
Click to expand...
Some types of rubber, yes. Other types are perfectly fine with ethanol. If your fuel system is designed for E10 (ours is) then it’s not a concern.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Swift is available at 30-some airports. G100UL isn’t available anywhere.

Why isn’t it? Every possible excuse I’ve heard so far is nullified by the availability of 94UL.

So why is it impossible to buy G100UL?
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. UL94 was developed much longer ago than G100UL.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Swift is available at 30-some airports. G100UL isn’t available anywhere.

Why isn’t it? Every possible excuse I’ve heard so far is nullified by the availability of 94UL.

So why is it impossible to buy G100UL?
Click to expand...


I’ll try explaining this one more time.

1) Swift (STC holder for 94UL) is a fuel producer.
2) GAMI is NOT a fuel producer.
3) No fuel producer has purchased the license to produce G100UL because they are receiving tax money to play around in chemistry labs in a half-hearted attempt to develop their own UL fuel.
4) We taxpayers are financing this goat-rope despite an UL fuel having already been approved. Cut off those funds, and the fuel producers will likely license G100UL rather than spending their own money in a (so-far) futile effort to create their own secret sauce.
 
asicer said:
How much is EAGLE costing us?
Click to expand...
The 2003 FAA budget shows $12.4 million
www.pilotsofamerica.com

Get the Lead out -- time to stop dragging our feet

There aren't any possible parallels between events in recent memory… but “It’s perfectly safe” is something plenty of people are skeptical of in the last, say, uh, five years or so, especially when your kids are riding in the back. It’s the devil(s) you know as the saying goes. As well as the...
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com
 
Half Fast said:
I’ll try explaining this one more time.

1) Swift (STC holder for 94UL) is a fuel producer.
2) GAMI is NOT a fuel producer.
3) No fuel producer has purchased the license to produce G100UL because they are receiving tax money to play around in chemistry labs in a half-hearted attempt to develop their own UL fuel.
4) We taxpayers are financing this goat-rope despite an UL fuel having already been approved. Cut off those funds, and the fuel producers will likely license G100UL rather than spending their own money in a (so-far) futile effort to create their own secret sauce.
Click to expand...
Swift became a fuel producer when they had a fuel to produce. Prior to that they were just a chemistry project. GAMI claims to have a fuel to produce. Where is it?

Your #3 assumes a lot of things. You may be right. It may also be that no one has bought the rights to G100UL because no one wants to be stuck with a fuel that no one wants to buy, likely because of its price.

As to #4, the taxpayers and the government, GAMI's whole business model apparently relies on 100LL becoming illegal. So, cheering for GAMI is cheering for the government to take 100LL away. That's too much for George and them to ask.
 
Half Fast said:
GAMI isn’t the hold-up. The delay is caused by the USG disincentivizing fuel producers from blending G100UL.
Click to expand...
And yet, Swift is available at over 30 airports. How is it that they're able to overcome that disincentive?

And maybe we pilots want G100UL to be disincentivized. There is a price beyond which G100UL is worse than no UL at all. What if they can't sell it profitably for less than $20/gallon? Would delaying G100UL sound like such a bad idea?
 
At first I thought it was really silly that they sold the STC before the fuel was available. Now I see that it was genius.

Pilots having (amusingly) sunk $500+ to purchase the right to buy the not-yet-existent Braly-spittle must now channel their frustrations into pro-G100UL zealotry on online forums, and must beat us heathens upside the head about it all. The amount of digital ink I've seen spilled whining about lead, fouled plugs, and evil and corrupt oil-men since that paperwork went up for sale is mind-numbing. And it shows no sign of slowing.

Clever bunnies in Ada.
 
DaleB said:
Consider, yes. Worry about, no. In the 7-8 years I’ve owned this plane I’ve sumped water exactly once, and that was after an Oshkosh rainstorm.

We’ve been burning E10 in our cars and lawn stuff for decades too. Exactly zero issues with water or any of the other horror stories.


Some types of rubber, yes. Other types are perfectly fine with ethanol. If your fuel system is designed for E10 (ours is) then it’s not a concern.
Click to expand...
E10 wrecked my lawnmower, motorcycle, chainsaw engines.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
And yet, Swift is available at over 30 airports. How is it that they're able to overcome that disincentive?
Click to expand...
Swift had an 8 year head start. G100UL got approved less than a year ago. Selling fuel ain't like selling Xboxes. That approval was also unexpected and quite a surprise to everyone involved, aside from Lirio Liu (FAA director of ACS). And it's not like G100UL is totally blocked. Apparently, they're on to plan B.

1691352527065.png

g100ul.com

G100UL

Find out more about GAMI's G100UL® high octane unleaded aviation gasoline.
g100ul.com
 
EdFred said:
E10 wrecked my lawnmower, motorcycle, chainsaw engines.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard people say that. Don’t know what to tell you. I wouldn’t leave it in the tank over the winter, but like I said we’ve been burning E10 in EVERYTHING since at least the 1990s without any problems. That’s all the cars, a couple of push mowers (I think the old one is still in use), a weed trimmer, lawn edger, snow blower, leaf blower, Harley, airplane…

I’ve got a ‘55 Vespa that I run avgas in, because it tends to sit for extended periods between repairs - I mean, uses. But when I had it running regularly I ran E10 in it.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
How much longer will GAMI have to take before you start wondering why it's taking so long?
Click to expand...
It's been less than a year since the G100UL STC was approved for widespread use. The only thing I wonder is whether anyone has started setting up production and distribution, and if not, why not. I think the answers provided in this thread have a reasonable likelihood of being true.

If you think you know how the obstacles can be overcome, maybe you should share your ideas with George Braly.
 
DaleB said:
I’ve heard people say that. Don’t know what to tell you. I wouldn’t leave it in the tank over the winter, but like I said we’ve been burning E10 in EVERYTHING since at least the 1990s without any problems. That’s all the cars, a couple of push mowers (I think the old one is still in use), a weed trimmer, lawn edger, snow blower, leaf blower, Harley, airplane…

I’ve got a ‘55 Vespa that I run avgas in, because it tends to sit for extended periods between repairs - I mean, uses. But when I had it running regularly I ran E10 in it.
Click to expand...

Wasn't over the winter. Not even a full season. Ruined the carbs. Tried to start the bike and it caught on fire. But yeah, E10 doesn't cause ANY problems, ever.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
And yet, Swift is available at over 30 airports. How is it that they're able to overcome that disincentive?
Click to expand...

The fact that their fuel is only available in a few dozen airports in the U.S. after eight years suggests that they haven't overcome whatever disincentives have existed during that time.

And maybe we pilots want G100UL to be disincentivized. There is a price beyond which G100UL is worse than no UL at all. What if they can't sell it profitably for less than $20/gallon? Would delaying G100UL sound like such a bad idea?
Click to expand...

Speaking of making assumptions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top